2026:HHC:13093-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17366 of 2025 Decided on: 23.04.2026 Dr. Kamal Jeet Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 3. : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. That writ of certiorari be issued and the approval accorded by the BOD, HPPTCL dated 29-9-2025 vide item No. 64.10 (Annexure P-7), carried out the amendment in the qualifying criteria for the post of DGM (F&A) and subsequent advertisement dated 13-10-S134272025 (Annexure P-8), being prejudicial to the interest of petitioners be declared 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:13093-DB illegal, arbitrary and hence, be quashed and set aside. B. Further, writ of Mandamus be issued by directing the respondent Corporation HPPTCL (respondent No. 3) to accept the permanent absorption of the petitioners in term of Gazetted notification dated 2-5-2025 issued by the Secretary (power) and consequent thereto, their candidature be considered for next promotional post in their respective categories. Further, the respondent corporation HPPTCL (respondent No. 3) after accepting the permanent absorption of the petitioners be directed to fill up the posts of DGM (F&A) through earlier mode of appointment i.e., promotional basis in terms of previous eligibility criteria and till then the process of recruitment through advertisement dated 13.10.2025 to the post of DGM (F&A) be kept in abeyance.” 2. In the course of hearing of this petition, the Court questioned learned Counsel for the parties that when actually was Annexure P-7 implemented, i.e. when the approval granted by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation to carry out necessary amendment in the qualifying criteria for the post of DGM (F&A) was incorporated in the Rules? 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation referred to Annexure R-3/B appended with the reply filed to the petition, which is office order dated 01.10.2025, in terms whereof, the decision taken by the Board of Directors in the 64th meeting held 3 2026:HHC:13093-DB on 25.09.2025, clause 36.1 and 36.2 regarding requisite experience and essential qualification for the recruitment of executives to the post of Deputy General Manager (Electricity), Deputy General Manager (P&A) and Deputy General Manager (F&A) at E-7 Level in the Direct Recruitment Procedure Manual was incorporated in existing Rules. 4. This petition was filed on 05.11.2025 inter alia assailing the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 25.09.2025 and the advertisement that has been issued by the respondent-Corporation dated 13.10.2025, on the basis of the proposal which was approved by the Board of Directors. However, the actual amendment which was incorporated in the relevant rules in terms of Annexure R-3/B, dated 01.10.2025, has not been assailed by the petitioner. 5. In light of the fact that Annexure R-3/B is dated 01.10.2025, obviously it preceded the issuance of advertisement dated 13.10.2025. Therefore, it cannot be the case of the petitioner that said office order was not in existence when the petition was filed. Further, the reply to the petition stood filed by the respondent- Corporation on 19.10.2025, alongwith which office order dated 01.10.2025 was also appended. Till date, no steps have been taken by the petitioner to amend the petition so as to lay challenge to office order dated 01.10.2025. 6. Thus, in light of the fact that the foundation of 4 2026:HHC:13093-DB advertisement Annexure P-8, dated 13.10.2025, i.e. office order dated 01.10.2025, has not been assailed by the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners, as prayed, that if so advised, they may approach the Court afresh on the same cause, by laying challenge to office order dated 01.10.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 23, 2026 (narender)